[Originally posted 6/12/2007]
It's fascinating how non-mainstream ideas can be hard to eliminate. It seems they have the fabled nine lives.
One interesting example was reported in the June 2007 issue of APSNews, the newsletter of the American Physical Society. In the Back Page section, Peter Zimmerman recounts the story of a claim for a hafnium bomb. On the basis of a single article claiming that such a bomb is feasible, significant research and government programs were initiated and seemingly can't be stopped easily. All that despite rather straightforward demonstration that such a device is not consistent with known science.
Another example came on my desk two weeks ago from an advocate of the geocentricity society. This article claimed that there was no independent evidence against a geostationary, geocentric model. It claimed that all such evidence was circular reasoning, based solely on assumptions that the earth was moving. No details were provided. I wonder how they explain the coriolis effect.
It seems there will always be those, even with a science pedigree, who affirm some position in contradiction to that of mainstream science. On one hand, this is very good since skepticism, as we have said previously, is the lifeblood of science. Constant questioning helps generate creative ideas. But integrity in science means that all such skepticism must be subjected to scientific methodology as well. Ideas that do not meet those rigorous tests must be rejected.
Science is neither a democratic process nor a relativistic "whatever works for you" philosophy. There are rigorous tests that determine what is a conclusion in science and what isn't. As Christians, our responsibility is to faithfully endorse integrity in science, not to simply fall back on skepticism whenever the results of science conflict with our preference. That doesn't mean we have to agree with mainstream science--but we must acknowledge what the scientific consensus is and ensure that any disagreement is based on sound methodology.